Dataset Information

Frequency of Poor Outcome (Death or Poor Quality of Life) After Left Ventricular Assist Device for Destination Therapy: Results From the INTERMACS Registry.

ABSTRACT: A left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improves survival and quality of life for many, but not all, patients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for transplantation. We sought to evaluate the frequency of poor outcomes using a novel composite measure that integrates quality of life with mortality.Within the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) national registry, poor outcome was defined as death or an average Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire <45 during the year after LVAD (persistently limiting heart failure symptoms and poor quality of life). Among 1638 patients with LVAD, 29.7% had a poor outcome, with death in 22.4% and persistently poor quality of life in 7.3%. Patients who had a poor outcome were more likely to have higher body mass indices (29.3 versus 28.2 kg/m(2); P=0.007), lower hemoglobin levels (11.1 versus 11.4 g/dL; P=0.005), previous cardiac surgery (47.8% versus 39.8%; P=0.004), history of cancer (13.8% versus 9.7%; P=0.025), severe diabetes mellitus (15.6% versus 11.5%; P=0.038), and poorer quality of life preimplant (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores: 29.8 versus 35.3; P<0.001).Nearly one third of patients die or have a persistently poor quality of life during the year after LVAD. We identified several factors associated with a poor outcome, which may inform discussions before LVAD implantation to enable more realistic expectations of recovery.

SUBMITTER: Arnold SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4985017 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Frequency of Poor Outcome (Death or Poor Quality of Life) After Left Ventricular Assist Device for Destination Therapy: Results From the INTERMACS Registry.

Arnold Suzanne V SV Jones Philip G PG Allen Larry A LA Cohen David J DJ Fendler Timothy J TJ Holtz Jonathan E JE Aggarwal Sanjeev S Spertus John A JA

Circulation. Heart failure 20160801 8

<h4>Background</h4>A left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improves survival and quality of life for many, but not all, patients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for transplantation. We sought to evaluate the frequency of poor outcomes using a novel composite measure that integrates quality of life with mortality.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Within the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) national registry, poor outcome was defined as death ...[more]

PMID: 27507111

Similar Datasets

Project description:The left ventricular assist device was originally designed to be surgically implanted as a bridge to transplantation for patients with chronic end-stage heart failure. On the basis of the REMATCH trial, the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services approved permanent implantation of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy in Medicare beneficiaries who are not candidates for heart transplantation. The use of the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy raises certain ethical challenges. Left ventricular assist devices can prolong the survival of average recipients compared with optimal medical management of chronic end-stage heart failure. However, the overall quality of life can be adversely affected in some recipients because of serious infections, neurologic complications, and device malfunction. Left ventricular assist devices alter end-of-life trajectories. The caregivers of recipients may experience significant burden (e.g., poor physical health, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder) from destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices. There are also social and financial ramifications for recipients and their families. We advocate early utilization of a palliative care approach and outline prerequisite conditions so that consenting for the use of a left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy is a well informed process. These conditions include: (1) direct participation of a multidisciplinary care team, including palliative care specialists, (2) a concise plan of care for anticipated device-related complications, (3) careful surveillance and counseling for caregiver burden, (4) advance-care planning for anticipated end-of-life trajectories and timing of device deactivation, and (5) a plan to address the long-term financial burden on patients, families, and caregivers.Short-term mechanical circulatory devices (e.g. percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, percutaneous ventricular assist devices, etc.) can be initiated in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of ventricular assist devices in chronic end-stage heart failure. In the absence of first-person (patient) consent, presumed consent or surrogate consent should be used cautiously for the initiation of short-term mechanical circulatory devices in emergency situations as a bridge to permanent implantation of left ventricular assist devices. Future clinical studies of destination therapy with left ventricular assist devices should include measures of recipients' quality of end-of-life care and caregivers' burden.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study examined patient outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation across a range of center surgical volumes.BackgroundIn order for a center to qualify for reimbursement, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires it to implant ≥10 LVADs or total artificial hearts over a 3-year period. The impact of center LVAD surgical volumes on patient outcomes has not been thoroughly scrutinized.MethodsCenter volumes were provided for 7,416 patients undergoing LVAD implantation who were enrolled in INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support). Center LVAD volume was categorized as either very low (≤10 implants/year, n = 617), low (11 to 30 implants/year, n = 2,561), medium (31 to 50 implants/year, n = 2,458), or high (>50 implants/year, n = 1,750). The main outcome of interest was patient survival based on center volume derived from Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression.ResultsOverall survival was associated with center volume (p = 0.003), as follows: 71 ± 1.8% (very low volume), 81 ± 0.8% (low volume), 83 ± 0.8% (medium volume), and 79 ± 1.0% (high volume) at 1 year. Compared with medium volume centers, the 90-day mortality was higher in very low volume (odds ratio [OR]: 1.35; p = 0.04) and high volume (OR: 1.28; p = 0.018) VAD centers. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11 to 1.56), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.21), and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.30) for very low, low, and high volume centers, respectively. Center volume did not predict mortality (p = 0.25; n = 3,688) in INTERMACS profile 1 patients (patients who had sustained cardiogenic shock) and profile 2 patients (patients with progressive hemodynamic decline despite inotropes).ConclusionsCenter volume correlates with post-VAD survival, with worse survival noted at very-low volume centers. These findings suggest that current U.S. VAD center standards warrant reconsideration.

Dataset Information

Frequency of Poor Outcome (Death or Poor Quality of Life) After Left Ventricular Assist Device for Destination Therapy: Results From the INTERMACS Registry.

Publications

Frequency of Poor Outcome (Death or Poor Quality of Life) After Left Ventricular Assist Device for Destination Therapy: Results From the INTERMACS Registry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets